[governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15

Ginger Paque gpaque at gmail.com
Thu Jul 16 08:38:32 EDT 2009


Thanks for continuing to add your views. Please keep the discussion 
going so that we can resolve these issues. I also remind you that we 
need to discuss Shiva's text for Q6 as well. Opinions?

I think Shiva has a good idea. However, I think we should go with the 
short alternate text, for the sake of consensus, and ask that Shiva 
submit his complete statement as a personal contribution.

On the "non-binding" point, I agree with Ian, that our best compromise 
may be to use the "may suffer" alternate. Is this acceptable to 
everyone, or should we drop it? Do a significant number of people oppose it?

Is there any disagreement on other points?

Thanks everyone. I know this has been a long process, with too many 
emails from me. I appreciate your patience. I do think it is important 
that the IGC submit this completed questionnaire, and I thank Bill for 
pointing it out.

Best, Ginger



Ian Peter wrote:
> Just so my position is clear I am happy with the “may suffer” 
> compromise, or alternatively with Bill’s text. But as others are 
> clearly opposed to Bill’s text and it won’t pass consensus, I will not 
> oppose “may suffer”. The question now is whether inclusion with “may 
> suffer” will be accepted in a consensus statement or whether the whole 
> paragraph should be dropped. My reading is the paragraph should be in 
> the text unless a a significant number of people oppose it.
>
> What say ye? Do we include or not include the following paragraph
>
> Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new
>
>                 structures and processes for the IGF that would allow
>                 it to produce more
>                 tangible outputs through a process of reasoned
>                 deliberation. The IGC
>                 contends that the IGF as a whole may suffer in the
>                 long term if it does
>                 not prove its value to the international community by
>                 adopting
>                 mechanisms for the production of non-binding
>                 statements on Internet
>
> public policy issues.
>
>
>
> On 16/07/09 3:33 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>     Comments below.
>
>     Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>         On 16/07/2009, at 9:22 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
>
>                 3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??,
>                 Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the
>                 need for new
>                 structures and processes for the IGF that would allow
>                 it to produce more
>                 tangible outputs through a process of reasoned
>                 deliberation. The IGC
>                 contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
>                 long term it does
>                 not prove its value to the international community by
>                 adopting
>                 mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING**
>                 statements on Internet
>                 public policy issues.]
>
>                 or change to Bill's suggestion of:
>
>                 "Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make
>                 recommendations 'where
>                 appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to
>                 whether the
>                 requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could
>                 be met. IGC
>                 members also have been divided on these matters, with
>                 some strongly
>                 favoring and others just as strongly opposing the
>                 adoption of
>                 recommendations. Since significant disagreements on
>                 this matter have
>                 colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF,
>                 the IGC believes it
>                 is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing
>                 multistakeholder
>                 dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever
>                 could be appropriate
>                 and on the possible implications of such negotiations
>                 for the IGF's
>                 unique character."
>
>
>             Yes I like Bill's text
>
>
>         I don't like it at all I'm afraid (sorry Bill) - and I should
>         also note that despite the highlighting of **NON-BINDING**
>         above suggesting that this wording was a change, in fact it
>         wasn't - it was in my original.
>
>         I'm not going to raise a fuss about the other compromises, but
>         I think I have to stand my ground on this one. First, it
>         exaggerates the effect of the qualifier "where appropriate".
>         Those words cannot be used to detract from the mandate.
>         Raising even the possibility that it might *never* be
>         appropriate to make recommendations, is effectively to
>         abrogate paragraph 72(g) altogether. Nobody has the authority
>         to do that - and still less should civil society be suggesting
>         it! What could it possibly gain us to rule out the possibility
>         that civil society could ever have real input into development
>         of Internet public policy through a multi-stakeholder
>         deliberative process?
>
>         If anything we should advocate for the *narrowest* possible
>         interpretation of "where appropriate"; for example, to say
>         that the qualifier is basically redundant - as even if there
>         were no controversy about making policy recommendations in
>         principle, there will always be particular issues on which it
>         would not be appropriate to do so (perhaps the emerging issue
>         is still evolving quickly).
>
>         My second objection is that the suggested replacement is far
>         too limiting as it is not only pursuant to 72(g) on
>         recommendations that the IGF could produce non-binding
>         outputs. A document might also need to be produced by the IGF
>         in order to facilitate discourse between or to interface with
>         other bodies, or to propose ways and means to accelerate the
>         availability and affordability of the Internet in the
>         developing world, or to assess the embodiment of WSIS
>         principles in Internet governance processes, or to find
>         solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the
>         Internet... or indeed in almost any of the paragraphs of its
>         mandate.
>
>         As a compromise I would accept changing "will suffer" to "may
>         suffer", which waters it down to a similar extent as has been
>         proposed for the other paragraphs accepted by Ian. Beyond that
>         though, this is looking less and less like a civil society
>         statement and more like the kind of thing ISOC might put out.
>         Frankly as Parminder has observed, if the IGC doesn't have the
>         guts to push for increased civil society input into Internet
>         policy development processes, I'm not sure who will. The end
>         result is that consumer voices will continue to be
>         disempowered and sidelined in favour of the incumbent
>         government and big business interests.
>
>
>     I completely agree. and also am firmly of the opinion that this
>     part may not be diluted any further than the compromise "may
>     suffer" that Jeremy has offered.
>
>     I am not sure about the other side's position, and the firmness of
>     it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and to the
>     whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is
>     not really so much his view (correct me if I am wrong but that is
>     what I read from his email) but that of some significant others.
>     Now who are these hidden others who do not want to step up and
>     share their views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can
>     go without their views. The basis of IGC's positions is
>     deliberation based consensus, and if people do not want to submit
>     to this then it is entirely their choice.
>
>     Ironical that we, through the suggested alternative text, are
>     asking for a discussion on the subject (with a highly prejudiced
>     language used in such asking) when we our selves in the IGC are
>     not ready to discuss it. We have put forward a good number of
>     arguments for more specific outcomes from the IGF and havent
>     received a response. parminder
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance



More information about the Governance mailing list